[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: IBM Public License (again)

On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:06:58AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> >Given that our standard position on patents is to ignore them unless a
> >particular patent holder is threatening us with lawsuits, I see no
> >reason why we shouldn't apply the same policy here.
> Our standard position on patents is usually for the case where we have 
> no patent licence and don't know that we require one. This is a case 
> where we are being offered a non-free patent licence and a free 
> copyright licence.

To be fair, it's IBM's (obsolete[0]) boilerplate license and the
patent clauses were "just in case"; most of the stuff under the IPL
won't actually have applicable patents (that used to be policy, don't
know if it still is).

> Why aren't these two seperate licences?

That's a fair question, it's usually less messy if written as two
licenses. I think that's just braindamage.

[0] They have since created and converted to the CPL, which is more
    generic but otherwise largely the same. People who are not IBM
    should not be using the IPL - it would either contain bogus
    references to IBM as the copyright holder, or it would have been
    edited and thusly would be a trademark violation to call it the
    "IBM Public License". Also the upgrade clause is insane if the
    original author isn't IBM.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: